Fast and Furious: Of Ignoring Subpoenas and Ignoring the need for them

In the wake of the IRS scandal, the AP Reporter scandal, and the James Rosen scandal, we now have a new one, involving CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was practically the only mainstream media reporter to doggedly pursue the gun-walking operation known as Fast and Furious. In addition to CBS confirming that Attkisson's computers have been breached, she says that it started during the time she was investigating Fast and Furious.

Here is an excerpt from an exchange with Bill O'Reilly:

O’REILLY: Which was what? What big stories were you working on?

ATTKISSON: Well, at the time I was doing Fast and Furious of course, some green energy debacle sort of stimulus spending stories, and then later on the Benghazi story.

Here is the exchange between O'Reilly and Attkisson, via NewsBusters:



In June of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not turning over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious demanded by a Congressional subpoena. As the contempt votes were taking place, President Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent them from being turned over.

In that case, the Obama administration thumbed its nose at the notion of honoring a subpoena.

Even after being held in contempt, the arrogance of Holder was on full display during a statement he made to the press:



If it comes to light that the Obama administration had anything to do with the breach of Attkisson's computer, we can logically conclude that it was done so without a warrant or subpoena.

Conversely, Barack Obama himself asserted Executive Privilege to prevent Eric Holder from having to honor one. As for suspicions that Obama and Company were involved in breaching Attkisson's computers, they certainly would have had a motive. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

There's a fine line between ignoring a subpoena and ignoring the need for one. That line is made even finer when subpoenas and the absence of subpoenas both appear to involve Fast and Furious.

Video: More fireworks between Darrell Issa and Eric Holder

Over the past couple of years, there have quite a few epic exchanges between Rep. Darrell Issa and Attorney General Eric Holder, mostly over Operation Fast and Furious. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which is where he often appears a bit more unfettered with respect to challenging Holder. As such, the Judiciary Committee is where the most compelling exchanges between the two men usually takes place.

Yesterday was no exception and it didn't even involve questions about any of the three major scandals that have befallen the White House in recent days.

Some might remember Barack Obama's controversial appointment of Thomas Perez as Secretary of Labor a couple of months ago. Over the past several years, Perez had been the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division. Aside from his extremely suspect testimony in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case or his involvement in targeting the state of Arizona back in 2010 over SB 1070, an immigration law signed by Governor Jan Brewer, Perez was also involved in shady quid pro quo deal with the state of Minnesota.

This is what Issa decided to hammer Holder over yesterday and it was, again, epic. As an added bonus, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (the registered Democratic socialist who asked where on the planet Mars astronauts planted the U.S. flag) butts in without having a case. If she was smart enough to understand how stupid she looked, she wouldn't have butted in at all.

For a fuller appreciation of what was going on here, PowerLine wrote about the case back in March and lays it out quite well.

This is a must-watch, even if it isn't about any of the three big scandals.

Obama offers Fast and Furious opportunities to Conservatives at NRA Convention (So far, no takers)

On the same day that the 2013 NRA Convention began in Houston, TX Barack Obama was in Mexico telling an audience that "most of the guns used to commit violent crimes here in Mexico, come from the United States." What he didn't tell that audience was that his administration is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, a program in which the ATF told reluctant gun store owners to sell high-powered guns to bad guys who would then 'walk' those guns to drug cartels in Mexico.

Yet, Republicans and gun rights activists have avoided bludgeoning those in the administration and on the Democratic side of the aisle by contrasting the exploitation of Sandy Hook with the failed attempt to exploit the consequences of Fast and Furious by pointing to its consequences. Those consequences have been - and continue to be - hundreds of murdered people. The Obama administration wanted to used those consequences to push gun control but couldn't because of whistleblowers in general, and one in particular - ATF Agent John Dodson.

Dodson came forward when one of the guns found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 was a gun from Operation Fast and Furious. In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress and Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent documents from coming forward that would reveal the truth about the operation.

Despite all of this, Obama presented every speaker at the NRA Convention with a golden opportunity to draw this contrast. To this point, no one has highlighted this contrast.

Said Obama on Friday, May 3rd, the first day of the NRA Convention:

"I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people that can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States... So we'll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We'll keep putting these criminals where they belong - behind bars."

This is gall-dacity.



Despite this low-hanging fruit, even Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have avoided contrasting Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook with his failure to do so in Fast and Furious... because he got caught.

It's hard to explain why conservatives are avoiding the one argument that will deliver the most severe blow. They don't even use it when they're being taunted by Obama.

Makes. No. Sense.



Here is Cruz. Good speech but he also avoided Fast and Furious vs. Sandy Hook:

Finally! Someone throws Fast and Furious into gun control debate (Ted Nugent vs. Erin Burnett)

Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.

Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.

Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.

Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.

Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.

Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?

Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?

Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.

In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.

Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.

If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.



h/t GWP

Video: John McCain assumes role of Jay Carney on Senate Floor, rips Rand Paul's Filibuster

As Rand Paul was making a stand by filibustering the nomination of John Brennan, John McCain was having dinner with Obama. The day after Paul's filibuster, McCain attacked Paul.

Via GWP:

Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Eric Holder to Rand Paul: We reserve the right to kill Americans on U.S. Soil

A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) comes on the same day that the Senate Intelligence Committee approved John Brennan's nomination for CIA Director. Paul has been threatening to delay a full Senate vote until Brennan would unequivocally state that Drones could not be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Brennan hasn't answered Paul's question but Holder has.

Via Washington Examiner:

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Once again, threats by Republican Senators to filibuster nominations appear to be empty because there is no united front when it comes to doing so.

Via the L.A. Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants the full Senate to consider the nomination by week’s end.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) vowed to delay the vote until the White House assures him it does not have authority to conduct a targeted killing of an American within the United States. But Paul acknowledged he probably cannot find enough senators to support a filibuster, which requires 41 votes.

It appears that Paul has gotten his answer via Holder but despite it being the wrong one, Brennan just got one step closer to becoming the new CIA Director.

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.

Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.

But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.

Via The Daily Mail:

Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.

The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.

Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.

The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?

Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.

Again, via the Daily Mail:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.

Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.

Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.

The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.

According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.

Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:

John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.

Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).

If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.

Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?

That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.

People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.

Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...

If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.

The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.

That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.

The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.

Chuck Schumer in 2013 Echoes Eric Holder in 1995

Only liberal logic can conclude that guns and cigarettes are synonymous. The latest case in point involves Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is comparing gun ownership to cigarette smoking. Believe it or not, this is nothing new. Eric Holder made this very same comparison back in 1995 during the same speech where he asserted that 'we need to brainwash people' about guns.

First up, Schumer...

Via CNS News:

:Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday that not talking about “guns when it comes to gun violence” is like not talking about “smoking when it comes to lung cancer.”

“The president has talked about generally dealing with violence in our society. I agree with that, but to take guns off the table, you know to not talk about guns when it comes to gun violence is to not talk about smoking when it comes to lung cancer. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s part of the problem, and we have to deal with it,” Schumer said.

Compare that to then U.S. Attorney Eric Holder who attempted a very similar comparison in 1995. This video has made the rounds but again, take note of the comparison he makes. Liberals see the stigma attached to cigarettes as an opportunity to exploit with guns (in the liberal mind, fire can be found at one end of each).

The strategy is very simple. The Democrats want to make guns taboo. They way they're going to attempt to do that is by demonizing gun owners in general and the NRA in particular - though the NRA is not the least bit extreme. In fact, it's an organization that is at times a little too politically correct.

When you take the words of Schumer today and compare them to the words of Holder in 1995 (at the :30 mark), it's very simple to see what the agenda is here.

Eric Holder's gun control audacity vs. John Boehner's political cowardice

The comments by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors were intended to help push Barack Obama's gun control agenda. What they did was further expose what Fast and Furious was all about:

"...the administration has called upon Congress to... consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals." - Eric Holder on 1/18/13

Aside from the fact that such penalties should apply to high ranking Obama administration officials - to include Holder himself - for what happened in Fast and Furious, this is quite the exercise in contrasting audacity with cowardice.

Audacity: boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions. 

Cowardice: lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.

First up, the truth regarding what Operation Fast and Furious was all about. It is a truth that Speaker John Boehner has proven he'd rather ignore than confront. That operation was conceived and carried out at the highest levels of the Justice Department and ATF with the irrefutable proof that Attorney General Eric Holder's immediate subordinates knew about it.

Fast and Furious was about ATF Supervisors in Arizona requiring Gun Store owners to sell assault weapons illegally to straw purchasers who would then 'walk' those weapons into Mexico and give them to drug cartels. These thousands of assault weapons were then used to murder hundreds of innocents. Those murders will continue for years to come. As Joe Biden said about Sandy Hook's shooting victims, children murdered at the hands of the thousands of guns our government gave to Mexican drug cartels have been and are being 'riddled with bullets'.

Biden has never referred to the countless victims of Fast and Furious - which include children as well - in such fashion.

This makes the U.S. Government (DOJ / ATF at minimum) complicit in mass murder with... assault weapons.

All along, the plan was to draw attention to these murders as well as to the fact that they were sold by U.S. gun dealers in order to re-enact the 1994 assault weapons ban as well as to enact tighter gun control restrictions. The administration - as well as the usual cast of Democratic politicians like Dianne Feinstein - was even caught lying about the percentage of guns found at Mexican crime scenes.

Once you come to grips with that reality, it's easy to see what's going on with the latest gun control push. The Obama administration is clearly banking on Sandy Hook doing what Fast and Furious failed at doing. This is not conjecture. It is demonstrable.

Here is Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, piggy-backing on the newly christened Sandy Hook exploitation exercise to enforce gun control.



To underscore the point, check out this video of Holder's immediate subordinate, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009, announcing what the goals of 'Project Gunrunner' (the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious) were. Take note what he says at the very beginning as well:

"The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan."

It's rather eye-opening to watch this after watching Holder above:



That Eric Holder still has a job is not only brazen on the administration's part but it exposes Obama's complicity in Fast and Furious. We already know he's complicit in the coverup.

Just look at Obama's ultimate actions in Fast and Furious and Sandy Hook to this point. The former involved Executive Privilege and the latter involves Executive Orders. The primary difference between the two is that Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face.

Sandy Hook is Plan B.

Only because it continues to be relevant... Eric Holder in 1995, when he was a U.S. Attorney. Note his comparison between gun owners and smokers. He refers to smokers as people who 'cower outside of buildings'. Nearly twenty years ago, Holder wanted a world where gun owners would 'cower' when it came to owning guns.

What's happening today?

The Obama administration is attempting to get gun owners to 'cower' by somehow blaming them for Sandy Hook. This administration is attempting to shame gun owners and the NRA. It's even brought back its 2012 election campaign team to help do it.

What the Republican establishment still refuses to either learn or admit is that the reason why the Obama campaign was so effective before the election was because the Romney campaign didn't fight. It will only be effective in the gun control push if Republicans repeat their failing formula.

The third presidential debate is where Romney lost the election. Why? Because he didn't hit Obama where the President was weakest - Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

On the same day that Holder was speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Boehner's office was asked to respond to Obama's unconstitutional gun control push via twenty-three Executive Order slaps in the face of Congress.

The response from the most powerful Republican in the United States?

Speaker Boehner will "review the recommendations". One could make the argument that this is strategic on Boehner's part but his history doesn't indicate that in the slightest.

In 2009, Eric Holder called his political opponents 'cowards'. Boehner continues to prove him right.

Holder fighting off FOIA request for Fast & Furious documents by refusing to respond to it

After Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents required by a lawfully issued subpoena by Congress, the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting his boss on criminal grounds predictably decided not to do so for obvious reasons. That left the civil contempt charge, which served as the impetus for a lawsuit filed by the House Oversight Committee against Holder that is still pending.

These subpoenaed documents are the same ones over which Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent from being released.

Concurrent with the civil lawsuit is an effort by a very effective Watchdog group to have the same documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it's causing Holder to react on a second front.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).

Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.

To Judicial Watch's argument, consider an exchange between Issa - in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Holder on December 8, 2011. In the exchange (audio only), Issa was pressing Holder to admit that if the documents relative to Fast & Furious after March of 2011 are not released, the Attorney General will be found in contempt.

There are two very key points (the second is particularly important) expressed by Issa relative to these documents.

1. Issa explains that Holder must cite a Constitutional exemption for refusing to produce the documents.
2. Even if Holder magically cites an exemption, he is still required to produce a log of the documents.

To this point, Holder has done neither, which leaves Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege the lone justification for the American people not knowing the truth about Fast and Furious.

Of all the exchanges between Issa and Holder, this one may just be the best.

h/t Breitbart

Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious: The tale of two Bidens

On January 9th, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that 'it's critically important that we act (on gun control)' and that 'the president is going to act with Executive Orders'. Seated immediately to Biden's right was Attorney General Eric 'gunwalker' Holder. That would be the same Eric Holder who was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not honoring a lawfully issued subpoena for documents that would help get to the bottom of an operation led by the Department of Justice and the ATF.

The gall of Holder to willingly become one of the faces of gun control today is incredible. This may be the Obama administration at its most audacious - and it thrives on audacity.

For two years, the DOJ stonewalled Congress, culminating in the President asserting Executive Privilege to prevent the subpoenaed documents from being released.

With that as a backdrop, ask yourself if it would have been more appropriate for the likes of Biden to turn to his right in this video and address Mr. Holder instead of reporters:

Whenever gun rights advocates rightfully claim that Operation Fast and Furious was about the DOJ and the ATF intentionally putting thousands of assault weapons into the hands of bad guys so they could murder innocent people, the left claims it's a conspiracy theory. Yet, the facts are in. The ATF ran an operation that did put assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to kill hundreds of innocent people.

All that's left to ascertain is motive but for two years, the administration stonewalled. Why is the urgency with which Biden is advocating gun control now, nowhere to be found for two years relative to the DOJ and the ATF? Why wasn't Obama demanding action be taken when the ATF was caught engaging in egregiously criminal behavior? Instead, he deferred to an Inspector General, who took well over a year to issue its final report.

Again, why didn't Obama demand action on gun control when it was learned that the ATF had placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

Remember this interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos more than three months after the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? Compare Obama's stance then to Biden's stance less than one month after the Sandy Hook shootings:



A silver lining to the administration's stance today - enunciated by Biden on January 9th - is that the truth about the motivation behind Fast and Furious becomes even more clear. The actions of this administration today are 180 degrees from its actions in the wake of Fast and Furious being exposed that it is even easier to see why the ATF armed the cartels.

It was an effort to create the climate that would facilitate gun control, just like the Sandy Hook shootings are being exploited for the EXACT. SAME. PURPOSE.

Operation Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face. Had it gone according to plan, I have no doubt that Biden or someone else from the administration (perhaps Holder) would have been sitting in front of reporters just like Biden did on January 9th and demanded action on assault rifles because of all the deaths in Mexico.

In this excerpt from Biden's comments to reporters, notice how he accentuates the fact that the children of Sandy Hook were 'riddled' with bullets. Yeah, Joe, hundreds of innocent Mexicans have been - and continue to be - riddled with bullets from assault weapons your administration intentionally gave to hardened criminals.

In the video below, Biden says:

"Every once in a while, there's something that awakens the conscience of the country."

Mr. Vice President, the only reason Fast and Furious didn't do that to a greater extent was that the administration for which you work covered it up and stonewalled attempts to uncover it.

Utterly. Shameless.

Was David Petraeus Blackmailed by the White House?

The definition of "blackmail" is as follows:

any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

If then CIA Director David Petraeus was instructed to give false testimony to Congress in the days after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack in exchange for his extramarital affair to remain under wraps, that would be a form of blackmail. The payment would be his compliance / false testimony. We now know that Petraeus did in fact give false testimony on 9/13/12.

Via ABC News:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

The question then becomes: Did Petraeus knowingly give false testimony?

According to the October 26th speech by his alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, Petraeus knew what was happening "within 24 hours" of the attack. If that can be confirmed, then we can rightfully conclude that Petraeus DID knowingly give false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

This leads to a very simple question: Why did he do it?

With hindsight, a few important things have come to light:

1. The Obama administration wanted to push a narrative that said the attack in Benghazi was caused by a reaction to the anti-Muhammad video, as evidenced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's five appearances on five different Sunday shows in which she parroted that narrative.
2. Attorney General Eric Holder likely knew of the Petraeus affair prior to the 9/11/12 attack.
3. The FBI knew of the affair as far back as last spring.

The amazing thing here is that because these officials had this information and didn't act on it, Petraeus was indeed susceptible to blackmail, not by external forces but by internal ones - the Obama administration itself.

Here is Charles Krauthammer speaking to this very thing on November 13th:

Or how about Lt. Col. Ralph Peters from November 9th:



As has been made clear since news broke of an extramarital affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, the reason it is significant is because it exposed him to blackmail. Since his resignation, we have been told by pundits and reporters that while the Petraeus affair was unfortunate, it ultimately posed no threat to national security.

Via CNN:

Retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks, for whom Broadwell once worked and who knows Petraeus, said he doubts security protocols were breached despite what seems an unlikely indiscretion on the part of Petraeus.

"There's almost zero percent chance that national security was compromised or at risk," he said Monday.

Via the Youngstown Vindicator:

...the affair between former general and ex-CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, may not have any greater national security implications than the celebrated affair of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor during the filming of “Cleopatra.”

Matthew Miller at the POLITICO, which is essentially a White House ventriloquist dummy, insists that the FBI followed the rulebook in its handling of the matter:

In this case, it appears the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation handled the matter entirely in keeping with those rules and precedents. And, importantly, they passed the most crucial test faced whenever the department investigates a senior member of the existing administration: They conducted the entire investigation without playing favorites and without a hint of political interference.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Miller is right and that the handling of the Petraeus matter by DOJ and FBI was flawless. He doesn't account for one very disturbing possibility.

Blackmail by the White House.

h/t WZ

Applying lessons learned from Fast and Furious investigation to Benghazi-gate

Attorney General Eric Holder recently told a class of law students that he may not be back for a second term. To say Holder's first term was scandal-ridden would be an understatement. Right out of the gate, after the Justice Department dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) related to voter intimidation, Holder was dogged by an investigation that just wouldn't go away for his first two years.

In November of 2010, the Civil Rights Commission found that Holder's Justice Department had created and implemented a policy that favored blacks over whites when it came to voting rights.

Approximately one month later, U.S. Border agent Brian Terry was gunned down in Arizona. Guns found at the scene were traced back to an ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. Whistleblowers came forward and informed the public through House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and Senate Judiciary ranking member Charles Grassley, that they were being told to let guns 'walk' into Mexico. What ensued was a nearly two year battle that ensnared the Justice Department. To this point, that investigation culminated with the Attorney General being found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not honoring a subpoena for documents.

If not for the dogged pursuit of justice over Fast and Furious by a significant contingent of engaged Americans, conservative bloggers, and certain Republican members of Congress (particularly on Issa's committee), the scandal likely wouldn't have gotten as far as it did and Holder might not be mulling retirement right now.

To the extent that the Fast and Furious investigation was successful, it was hamstrung by a complicit media, a corrupt and hyper-partisan Democratic party, and Republican leadership that seemed disinterested in fighting the good fight. Speaker John Boehner rarely spoke about the scandal and when he did, his words were brief, measured, and virtually inconsequential. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, rarely broached the subject when it would have been most effective; the third debate comes to mind.

Had Mitt Romney asked the president to explain why he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the subpoenaed documents from being released to Congress, the mainstream media would have been forced to cover the story. Ditto if Boehner would have been more outspoken about the scandal. Any hopes that a Romney win would have given Republican leadership the opportunity to take the path of least resistance were dashed on November 6th.

Now that same Republican leadership has something much bigger and much more significant to deal with - an Obama second term and Benghazi-gate.

We're already seeing a willingness on the part of the mainstream media and the Democratic party to follow the same formula that either prevented or delayed justice in Fast and Furious. What we cannot afford is for Republican leadership to do the same. Benghazi is far worse than Fast and Furious. While Committee hearings appear to be in the offing - to include Issa's Oversight Committee - House leadership, to include John Boehner (assuming he's re-elected as Speaker), is more likely than not to attempt to avoid fighting that good fight again.

Some will say that Benghazi-gate will be dealt a blow as a direct result of the President's reelection. Again, however, had there been a responsible media to report on the scandal before the election, Obama likely would have lost.

Those of us who understand that 2+2=4 know that socialist, liberal economic policies are always doomed to fail. To the extent that they're implemented in Obama's second term, they will again. The United States is going to hit a very rough patch in the coming months / years. That, coupled with a very public, forceful, and united front from House Republicans and leadership on Benghazi-gate could lead to justice being done.

Getting to the bottom of Benghazi-gate will require much of what got us so close to getting to the bottom of Fast and Furious - whistleblowers, an informed and engaged public that demands answers, and committed Republicans on House Committees with fearless Republican chairmen. It will also require something we didn't have during the Fast and Furious investigation...

...a fearless Speaker.

Hillary Clinton, Videos, and Political Prisoners

When the father of Tyrone Woods (Charles Woods) called in to the Lars Larson show on October 23rd, what he told the host indicates that Hillary Clinton is willing to incarcerate people for political reasons. In the case Woods was referring to, he said Hillary pledged to prosecute the man behind the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims. Such a reality would indicate a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to jail people as political prisoners in America.

This is no small matter... and it's also not unprecedented for Hillary Clinton.

In the year 2000, a Hollywood mogul named Peter Paul put on a star-studded gala for both Bill and Hillary; it consisted of Hollywood's A-list at the time. Whoopi Goldberg, Sugar Ray, Paul Anka, Cher, Toni Braxton, and others took the stage. Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, and other celebrities were in attendance; it went off without a hitch in a very short period of time (six weeks) and cost Paul over $1.2 Million. It was meant to be a farewell to Bill and a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.

What was Paul expecting in return? Well, in 1998, he formed a company with Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) called Stan Lee Media (SLM), Inc. Paul wanted Bill to work to work for SLM as a rainmaker after leaving office.

Though Paul upheld his end of the deal, the Clintons never did. Shortly after the Gala, Clinton machine apparatchiks went to work. Paul was smeared and his largest investor was wooed away from him by a man named Jim Levin, who had served as an intermediary between the president and Paul in the run-up to the gala. Soon thereafter, SLM went bankrupt and the Clintons could say they didn't renege because there was no longer a Stan Lee Media to work for.

In a last ditch effort to save the company, Paul did manipulate the stock price in hopes of preventing the destruction of his company. It didn't work and he was charged with a Securities and Exchange Commission violation - which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison - and arrested while in Brazil, tending to one of his other companies in 2001.

Before being detained, Paul gave an explosive interview to ABC's Brian Ross that was incredibly damaging to the Clintons, though some of the more explosive claims were edited out at the last minute. He named both Bill and Hillary in a lawsuit and would cause them fits for years. Paul had videos, documents, witnesses, letters from both Bill and Hillary, and a mountain of other evidence that was incredibly damaging to the president and first lady. In fact, David Rosen - Hillary's campaign finance director - was indicted, in large part because of Paul's evidence and subsequent public pressure. Though Rosen was ultimately acquitted, the extent to which powerful people had to go in order to get that acquittal stunk of corruption and cover-up.

Paul was actually jailed for two years in Brazil, spent more time in a Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, and then four years under house arrest. Paul claims that in 2009, he accepted a plea deal that would include those four years counting as time served. When he surrendered in November of 2009, Paul was informed that the deal reached between himself and the U.S. Attorney was essentially withdrawn and his credit for time served under house arrest was not awarded.

This reality falls in the lap of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In essence, Peter Paul has become a political prisoner; the U.S. Government has reneged on a plea deal; and Paul is serving more than the maximum sentence for his crime.

Holder and the Clintons have a long history together as well (think Marc Rich pardon, the release of Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, and the freeing of FALN terrorists).

There are two separate dynamics when it comes to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Mark Basseley Yousef), the man behind the anti-Muhammad video. First, by all accounts, he has an extremely checkered history and real questions about his relationship with a man named Eiad Salameh still need to be answered, as do questions about his real motivations behind producing the film. Americans deserve to know the truth about those motivations as well as his associations.

The second dynamic is Hillary's alleged willingness to jail someone for political reasons. If she told Charles Woods what he alleges she told him, it means that she is willing to imprison someone for doing something that is not against the law.

In Unsung Davids, the very first chapter is about Peter Paul's battle with Hillary Clinton. After reading about how much damage he did to the Clintons, to include a documentary that went viral in late 2007 - when Hillary was beginning her long campaign fight with Barack Obama - it should become clear why Paul is a political prisoner in America.

UNSUNG DAVIDS: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory

Here is the video that did legitimate damage to Hillary Clinton in 2007 and likely contributed to Peter Paul becoming a political prisoner. Paul is not scheduled for release until 2014, four years after the maximum sentence for the crime he was charged with.

Shocker: DOJ seeks to dismiss Fast & Furious lawsuit

Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents subpoenaed in the Fast and Furious investigation. As was expected, the criminal conviction would go nowhere because Holder's subordinate is the individual responsible for prosecuting it (gotta protect the boss). That left the civil contempt conviction. The House Oversight Committee filed a lawsuit to demand the release of the documents. Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege in order to prevent their release. He did so on the day Holder was found to be in contempt.

Now, the Justice Department is seeking a dismissal of the civil suit.

Via CBS News:

The Justice Department says federal courts should stay out of a political dispute between the Obama administration and Congress over documents in a botched law enforcement probe of gun trafficking.

In court papers filed Monday night, the department is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit by a Republican-led House committee, which is demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder produce records about Operation Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department says the Constitution does not permit the courts to resolve the political dispute between the executive branch and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The political branches have a long history of resolving disputes over congressional requests without judicial intervention, the court filing said.

President Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege and the attorney general has been found in contempt of the House for refusing to turn over records that might explain what led the department to reverse course after initially denying that federal agents had used a controversial tactic called gun-walking in the failed law enforcement operation.

There seems to be a slight problem with this argument. In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that president could not assert Executive Privilege to cover up any crimes that had been committed.

A central component in the documents subpoenaed in Fast and Furious has to do with a February 4, 2011 letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich and addressed to Senator Charles Grassley. That letter alleged that the ATF was not allowing guns to walk into Mexico. Ten months later, the letter was withdrawn because its main assertion had been disproven.

Many of the documents subpoenaed are thought to provide some answers as to how that letter was written in the first place as well as what transpired in the months afterward.

If the precedent in this case is U.S. v. Nixon, a dismissal at this stage should not be considered likely. Then again, we've all seen some bizarre rulings these days.

Left-wing absurdity: Defending Obama administration in the wake of dead bodies

No one screams louder about wanting bi-partisanship than the voices from the left. However, time and time again, it is demonstrated that the left is far more entrenched in the idea of defending its party at all costs. The quintessential case-in-point would be contrasting the fates of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon left office as a direct result of bi-partisan opposition. House impeachment and Senate conviction was inevitable; he resigned.

Bill Clinton remained in office despite being impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice (lies and cover-ups). He wasn't removed from office because there was zero bi-partisanship in the Senate, except for a few Republican Senators who voted 'not guilty'. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate because there wasn't a single Democratic vote to convict on either of the two counts.

In Operation Fast and Furious, the highest officials at the Justice Department were found to be complicit in gun-walking that resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member on the Oversight Committee, which spearheaded the investigation, fought tooth and nail to defend DOJ as well as the Obama administration. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to which Cummings belongs, walked out during the contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder, who had refused to honor a Congressional subpoena for documents after having to withdraw a letter that was demonstrably false (lies and cover-ups).

The Democrats on the committee demonstrated that even dead bodies wouldn't  prompt them to seek justice when it was their party on the hook. Not one of the Oversight committees' Democrats voted to bring contempt charges against Holder to the House floor, though some Democratic congressmen did vote for contempt once it got there. Just prior to the vote, Barack Obama did what Richard Nixon did. He asserted Executive Privilege to prevent those congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.

Fast forward to Benghazi-gate. Like Fast and Furious, Obama administration policies led directly to dead bodies. In the case of our consulate, there were four dead Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Administration officials changed their stories multiple times, first saying the attack was the result of an anti-Muhammad video and then being forced to admit the attack was coordinated and planned (lies and cover-ups).

Despite State Department officials and security officers on the ground confirming that multiple requests were made - unsuccessfully - for additional security assets, the left continues to defend the Obama administration on grounds that it didn't know and has a lot on its plate. In the case of Fast and Furious, that included DOJ. In the case of Benghazi,  it includes the State Department.

When Clinton was not removed from office in 1998, it was a major flashpoint in American history. The Democratic Party laid the foundation for its despicable behavior today. Crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice were dismissed and Clinton was defended because of what the lie was about and why he tried to cover it up. A new standard had been set; it was ok to lie and attempt to cover up said lie if the lie itself was perceived to be minor.

In 2012, it's evident the Democrats have set a new standard for acceptable lies and cover-ups. An administration that has lied and covered-up in both Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate is being defended by Democrats, in the wake of policies that have led to dead bodies.

In Clinton's case, he was protected because the lie was perceived to be insignificant. In the case of Fast and Furious and Benghazi, a different course is being chosen - since lying about murder has not devolved to acceptable behavior - at least not yet (then again, the left seems content with lying about abortion not being about murder).

As a consequence, the administration is defended because it was ignorant of the circumstances that led to murder. In Fast and Furious, we were to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder knew that guns were being put into the hands of people who would use them to kill Brian Terry along with hundreds of other innocents. In Benghazi-gate, we are to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton knew about the requests for additional security by those who would be killed, despite testimony from State Department officials to the contrary.

We are also told that when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeat over and over that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Muhammad video, they weren't lying. Again, the significance of the lie is not at issue. Denying lies were told - despite evidence to the contrary - is still the chosen course of action. That is, until lying about murder reaches the level of being considered acceptable.

In 1998, Democrats protected Bill Clinton by equating perjury with a white lie.

In 2012, Democrats are protecting the Barack Obama administration by equating dead bodies as the direct result of the administration's policies with events outside the administration's control.

Video: Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a go at the Eric Holder strategy

In this exchange between DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Piers Morgan, the CNN host rightfully asks her about the narrative coming out of the Obama administration that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible for the Benghazi attacks. When Morgan tells Schultz that the information "was wrong", Schultz responds with, "well that doesn't mean it was false."

At that point, Morgan has a brief moment of apoplexy.

In the mind of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the following equation is.... well, either wrong or false:

wrong = false

Via Hot Air:



After watching that insanity, take a look at this exchange between House Judiciary Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Attorney General Eric Holder on December 8, 2011. At issue is the Justice Department's then recent withdrawal of a February 4, 2011 letter sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich. In that letter, Weich asserted that the ATF was not involved in gun-walking.

Just prior to this hearing, the Justice Department rescinded the letter and, in so doing, admitted that the letter was... false?

Uh, not so much. Like Piers Morgan, Gowdy appeared apoplectic when he couldn't get Holder to admit that the letter had been withdrawn because it was "demonstrably false".

Is this the John Dodson of the Benghazi attacks?

There are some parallels developing between Operation Fast and Furious and the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. First, the man at the tip of the spear in the Fast and Furious investigation has been Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight committee. He now appears to be taking the lead in the investigation into why four Americans - including ambassador Christopher Stevens - were murdered in Benghazi.

Another similarity is the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson of CBS. Many might remember that Attkisson was the first and only real mainstream media reporter who investigated Fast and Furious. In fact, she's the one who introduced whistleblower John Dodson to the country in an interview during which the ATF agent dropped the bombshell that ultimately led to Attorney General Eric Holder being found in criminal contempt of Congress. Specifically, Dodson was the first whistleblower to charge that the ATF was allowing guns to walk into Mexico. The death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was the last straw for Dodson.

Now, as the Oversight Committee prepares for its first hearing into what happened in Benghazi, Attkisson sat down with Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the man who led the Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya before he was told the American mission there would have to do with less. In many ways, Wood does in this interview much of what Dodson did to the Justice Department in Fast and Furious; Wood outs the State Department as being complicit in the Benghazi murders by ignoring calls for more security.

Via CBS News:



Here is Attkisson's interview with Dodson in March of 2011:

Video: Fast and Furious - Under the Radar and Above the Law

Well worth the watch as a re-enactment of Brian Terry's murder is included. This is a short excerpt taken from what will be a full length documentary by Fleming Fuller. Be sure to watch all the way to the end as there are some powerful words put up on screen, set to some ominous music.

Fast and Furious: Under the Radar and Above the Law



h/t Sipsey Street